( 1 ) THE lands sought to be acquired for public purpose in this matter were the subject matter of earlier notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as`the Act ) which was issued on 13th November, 1959. Thereafter the matter was taken to the Apex Court and a direction was given that after hearing the petitioner under Section 5a of the Act, the appropriate order may be passed.

( 2 ) HOWEVER, it appears that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Government took a decision to issue a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act which was accordingly issued on 13th March, 1975. The objection came to be filed by the petitioner on 16th August, 1975. At that stage this petition was filed in August, 1977. After considering the objections raised by the petitioner herein, Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22nd February, 1978. It transpires that thereafter, notice under Section 9 was issued on or about 1st December, 1980 to which objections were raised by reply dated 19th January, 1981 which are on the record at page 374. Soon after the issuance of notice under Section 9, the petitioner moved an application in the writ petition and by order dated 11th December, 1980 the court directed that the petitioner should not be dispossessed. Ultimately on further hearing on 29th September, 1981 the court directed the Land Acquisition Collector not to make award with regard to the lands in question.

( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that the petitioner approached the court after subsequent notification under Section 4 dated 13th March, 1975 and before declaration under Section 6 was issued on 22nd February, 1978. Our attention was invited to objections which are filed at page 102. Because of repeated amendments of the writ petition, record has become bulky. Today, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted written submissions as well. However, we have considered the submissions which were advanced at the time of arguments and the reference to the record made at the time of hearing.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that:

(1)THERE could be no two notifications for the same land. (2)Despite the application given to the Land Acquisition Collector for supplying the copies of the plans for development of the petitioner s land, no such document was given and, therefore, it could not make effective representation. (3)The lands were sought to be acquired for a housing society and, therefore, the entire procedure is contrary to law. (4)While rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, the Lt. Governor on 6th January, 1978 has not taken all the aspects into consideration. (5)No hearing was given to the petitioner and, therefore, it is a mere formality and the notification under Section 6 should be quashed. (6)It was submitted that for a small parcel of land there could not be a notification for Planned Development of Delhi.

( 5 ) THESE are the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner which are required to be dealt with in this writ petition.

( 6 ) SO far as the question with regard to issuance of two notifications is concerned, it may be stated that this submission is meritless. It is always open to the Government not to proceed under a particular notification and to issue subsequent notification according to the facts and circumstances of the case. On the contrary, there would be no prejudice caused to the petitioner but it would be against the interest of the State as the State would require to pay the price as prevailing on the date of subsequent notification. In the instant case, the earlier notification under Section 4 was published on 13th November, 1959 and later one on 13th March, 1975 and, therefore, the State will require to pay the market price as prevailing on 13th March, 1975. As far as the petitioner is concerned, there was no prejudice caused to the petitioner. It may